Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful content by explaining that failed rows carry a reason and a retry signal, and that 'needs reconnect' requires a human to re-authorise the channel. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or any auth/rate constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and non-redundant: the first states what the tool returns, the second explains failure-row semantics. No filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does some of the work by explaining the meaning of failed rows and the retry signal. It still omits what a normal row contains, pagination/limit behavior, default status scope, and ordering, which an agent needs to consume the output correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents status, workspace_id (including the current-workspace default and the pointer to autowhisper_status), and autowhisper_token. The description mentions status filtering but adds no value or enum values beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('post queue list') and its scope ('optionally filtered by status'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling action/status/wallet tools by domain. It never names an adjacent list-style sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage signal is 'optionally filtered by status', which implies a read of the queue but gives no when-to-use/when-not and names no alternative (e.g. versus autowhisper_action or autowhisper_feed). The failure-row explanation hints at diagnostics use, but that is inference, not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.